SECOND SECTION

CASE OF HATALA v. HUNGARY

(Application no. 35569/05)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

30 November 2010

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Hatala v. Hungary,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
	Dragoljub Popović, President,
	András Sajó,
	Kristina Pardalos, judges,
and Françoise Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 9 November 2010,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1.  The case originated in an application (no. 35569/05) against the Republic of Hungary lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Hungarian national, Mr László Hatala (“the applicant”), on 26 September 2005.
2.  The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr L. Höltzl, Agent, Ministry of Public Administration and Justice.
3.  On 22 June 2009 the President of the Second Section decided to give notice of the application to the Government. In accordance with Protocol No. 14, the application was allocated to a Committee of three judges.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
4.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Budapest.
Proceedings “A”
5.  On 17 August 1994 Mr E.H. brought an action against the applicant before the Pest Central District Court seeking the vacation of a real property. After several hearings, on 30 November 1999 a judgment was delivered. On 10 November 2000 the Budapest Regional Court quashed this decision and remitted the case.
6.  In the resumed proceedings, hearings were held on 8 January, 28 March, 14 June, 22 October 2002 and 24 January 2003. On 23 May 2003 a judgment was adopted. On 17 September 2004 the Regional Court upheld this decision.
7.  On 31 March 2005 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's petition for review in a reasoned decision, holding that the second-instance judgment had not been unlawful to an extent that had a bearing on the merits of the case. This decision was served on 1 June 2005.
Proceedings “B”
8.  On 3 December 1996 the same plaintiff brought an action against the applicant before the District Court, challenging his disinheritance. On 13 and 27 November 1997, 24 March, 2 July and 26 November 1998 hearings were held. On the latter date an interim judgment was adopted. On appeal, the Regional Court held a hearing on 30 September 1999. On 24 February 2000 it partly upheld the interim ruling and partly remitted the case.
9.  In the resumed proceedings, on 31 October 2000 the District Court held a hearing and appointed a graphology expert. He filed his opinion on 10 January 2001. On 27 March, 13 November 2001 and 23 April 2002 hearings took place. Subsequently, the opinions of two more experts were obtained. Further hearings were held on 28 January, 6 May, 30 September 2003, 11 May 2004, 25 January and 19 April 2005, 8 February, 8 March, 10 April, 24 May, 12 July, 11 September and 6 October 2006.
10.  On 13 October 2006 the District Court gave judgment, partly finding for the plaintiff. On 14 June 2007 the Regional Court dismissed the appeals. On 6 November 2007 the Supreme Court refused to deal with the applicant's petition for review, since the value of the dispute was under the statutory threshold.
THE LAW
11.  The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The Government contested that argument, arguing in particular that the application was introduced out of time in respect of proceedings “A”, the final domestic decision being the one given by the Regional Court on 17 September 2004, whereas the application was introduced only on 26 September 2005, i.e. more than six months later (cf. Article 35 § 1 of the Convention).
12.  The Court observes that, for the purpose of its examination of the reasonableness of the length of proceedings, it must take into account all instances which could have had an influence on the outcome of the case (see Maria de Lurdes Rosa Marques and Others v. Portugal (dec.), no. 48187/99, 7 June 2001). In this connection, it finds that the decision of the Supreme Court, served on the applicant on 1 June 2005, and which dealt with the merits of the applicant's petition for review and adopted a reasoned decision in the matter, constituted the final domestic decision with regard to proceedings “A” (Béla Szabó v. Hungary, no. 37470/06, § 16, 9 December 2008). The Government's objection must therefore be rejected. Moreover, the Court considers that the application is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
13.  In proceedings “A”, the period to be taken into consideration began on 17 August 1994 and ended on 1 June 2005. It thus lasted over ten years and nine months for three levels of jurisdiction. In proceedings “B”, the period to be taken into account commenced on 3 December 1996 and ended on 6 November 2007. It thus lasted ten years and eleven months. Of this time, the approximately five-month period corresponding to the applicant's futile petition for review, which was excluded by the law, must be imputed to him. The remaining length is ten years and six months for three levels of jurisdiction.
14.  The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present application (see Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII). Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court considers that the Government have not put forward any fact or convincing argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present circumstances. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement. There has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1.
15.  Relying on Article 41 of the Convention, the applicant claimed 12,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The Government contested this claim. The Court considers that the applicant must have sustained some non-pecuniary damage. Ruling on an equitable basis, it awards him EUR 10,400 under that head.
16.  The applicant also claimed 82,960 Hungarian forints (HUF) for the costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and HUF 136,400 for those incurred before the Court, the latter item corresponding to legal advice taken and mailing expenses, and being partly supported by invoices. The Government did not express an opinion on the matter. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-law, the Court rejects the claim for costs and expenses in the domestic proceedings and awards the entirety of those incurred before it, i.e. EUR 490.
17.  The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
1.  Declares the application admissible;

2.  Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;

3.  Holds
(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the following amounts, to be converted into Hungarian forints at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i)  EUR 10,400 (ten thousand four hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 490 (four hundred ninety euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses;
(b)  that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;

4.  Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 30 November 2010, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
	Françoise Elens-Passos	Dragoljub Popović
	Deputy Registrar	President